Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
New Close reason needed [duplicate]
Closed as duplicate by Mithical on Dec 10, 2020 at 18:08
This question has been addressed elsewhere. See: Need wording fix in dup close banner
This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.
I received a flag for https://meta.codidact.com/questions/279799 that it was a duplicate of https://meta.codidact.com/questions/279637
That is indeed a duplicate and I closed it. However, the text reason with Duplicate is:
This question has been answered before.
which is not strictly speaking true here. This question has been asked before but has not received an answer. It has comments, tag status-planned, etc. So it is being worked on, but no "answer".
Suggest text change to something like:
This question has been asked before.
either in place of the existing text or, if there is concern about different questions that happen to have answers which satisfy this new question then make two separate "duplicate" close reasons. (Which of course makes a duplicate of duplicate...)
1 answer
In this particular case, I would be inclined to disagree: the question has been answered before. It's just that the answer is actually given in a comment and a tag, not an answer post.
"Can we get Feature X?" where one of the people who do a lot of the work on the code responds with "This has been on my list for a while, but I haven't had the time to give it some thought so far." and puts the "status-planned" tag on the question is, IMO, pretty decisively answered: that feature doesn't exist now, but we do plan to implement it.
Maybe just change the close reason text from this question has been answered before to this question has been addressed before?
1 comment thread